Rugby joins ranks of the politically correct with 'no winner

[TigerCam]

A new non-competitive version of rugby union, introduced by an official body, is criticised for "robbing children of motivation"
Rugby union would seem to be one of the least likely games to be influenced by political correctness.
But the sport has risked damaging its macho image, with new rules being brought in insisting children’s “mini rugby” teams can no longer play to win.
The changes are being introduced by Surrey Rugby, a constituent body of the Rugby Football Union (RFU), for those in the six to 11 age group.
Under the rules, teams must also be “mixed ability”, and must be weakened if they are winning too easily and there must be no overall winner.
The scheme has provoked anger from many in the game. Simon Halliday, an ex-England international and board member at Esher rugby club, told the Financial Times: “We are appalled and have withdrawn from all Surrey rugby competition.

Whatever next!!

[kingol22]

What is wrong with this country? There are winners and losers in every part of life and the sooner children realise this the better for them

[Farmboy]

There is a place for a day of rugby were it is played for fun but there is also a place for competitive festivals with winners & losers.

[Bill W (2)]

Ahem. Winners and those who also played!

[G.K]

No all players are created equal and the first one now shall later be last for the rules they are a changing.....

[Big Dai]

No all players are created equal and the first one now shall later be last for the rules they are a changing.....

As one of those not created equal, far too rotund! I was glad to find my level. Nothing better than a good even contest, nothing worse than having a game where you got mullered at each scrum........though dishing it out wasn't so bad!

If we could seed kids into games so that the teams were "streamed" that would be better. IMHO. Mixed ability is a recipe for hurt and injury.

Nowt wrong with competition!

[G.K]

You realise that my post was meant to be a tad sarcastic Dai?

[Big Dai]

You realise that my post was meant to be a tad sarcastic Dai?

Quite..............I was just musing on the Dylan-esque lyrical quality! You reminded me of a couple of things.......that's all.

[jgriffin]

I think everyone except Dai is missing the point.
There are no World Cups for the 6-11 age group (indeed older than that).
In football, UK instance on full pitch games in leagues for everyone has resulted in our players being generally woefully underskilled, and our national team a joke.
Like wise in rugby we need kids to keep playing and be very skilled from an early age (see NZ). Therefore we need to avoid pitting small children against overgrown ones at junior level (11-15) and seed by size as far as possible. Below that, I cannot see how focusing on skills and avoiding sides being mullered is bad.
You can't play if everyone else has quit because you are mullering them. English rugby can't survive if kids are not having some positive experiences. Whether Surrey's move is the best way to do it is moot, but the basic idea is very sound and one practised all over the place (e.g. Dutch/German insistence on skills rather than results at young ages).
I just wish some of the UKIP mob on here would think rather than Daily Wail.

[Rizzo]

Some points on the situation in this piece.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/10 ... ldren.html

Encouraging children is a good thing, but in my experience they are competitive and this should also be encouraged. It's no good not having "winners and losers" and then sending them out into the big wide world where they will learn the hard way that situation doesn't exist out there. You say to your child - you tried your best and your hardest and sometimes you win and sometimes you lose, that's the way it goes.

[northerntiger]

This is more or less what happens at mini level already. U7 and 8 is tag rugby, and our club rule is that is you turn up, you play. As tag games are short, a fixture consists of several games. Contact is fairly limited up to u11s, and you need to play mixed ability teams as future props are rubbish at tag- if you only played the best tag players you would end up with a team of backs later on.

I tried to search the Surrey website and couldn't find anything on this. I note the original article was in the Telegraph, who tend to have an agenda on these matters!

[SPIKE@srufc]

These changes are very much happening.
The changes in mini rugby are within the New Rules of Play although the pilot in Surrey seems to be taking it even further than the published rules suggest.
However, the RFU is busy diluting the game in the higher age groups too. They are running "Blueprint Rugby" workshops under the guise of seeking opinion. These meetings feature the most leading of questions and a very clear direction from the RFU that competition is bad and children should be shielded from it at all costs.
They refer to all sorts of data and surveys which have been collected but having attended the meetings, challenged the RFU staff on the data and been promised sight of the same two months later I am still waiting for the information.
It would appear that the changes are due to anecdotal comments.
The sad thing is even the schools who have been working under the non-competitive sports days and awards for everyone for turning up have seen that this doesn't work and there is a return to competitive sport.
The Blueprint rugby is proposing U13s at 10 aside, no scrums played on half a pitch.
The other issue is the RFU have no control over school rugby so the gap between private and state school / club rugby will widen and the game will once again return to that realm.

[Bill W (2)]

Seems to me Spike that some in the RFU have their heads where the sun does nt shine!

It was ever thus!

[Mat]

I am not sure about no winners but I do agree we need to vastly improve skill. For those who have spent any time coaching mini and youth rugby you will know that 1-2 early developed monsters can win a game on their own. This can even happen at county level. No one learns anything and most of theses big ball carriers are used as battering rams so so not develop as players. A few years later when others have grown and can tackle they disappear. In the meantime skilful players are battered and demoralised.

Nz have core skill as the basis for all they do. They play in weight categories to protect the smaller ancestral European from the ancestral islanders.

Yes be competitive but we need common-sense when a team is not strong enough to deal with 1 or 2 individuals there should be a mechanism to withdraw those players during the game to give others a chance to develop. I was recently assistant coach at an unde r 13 county fixture. The opposition were stronger and more skillful and quite rightly won the game. Their inside centre was an animal he broke the line almost at will.after a few try's they took him off and it was a more even game and people could then see what the other players could do. If only all coaches were as enlightened we would not need regulations to enforce things

At this stage it should all be about development not winning

[jgriffin]

I am not sure about no winners but I do agree we need to vastly improve skill. For those who have spent any time coaching mini and youth rugby you will know that 1-2 early developed monsters can win a game on their own. This can even happen at county level. No one learns anything and most of theses big ball carriers are used as battering rams so so not develop as players. A few years later when others have grown and can tackle they disappear. In the meantime skilful players are battered and demoralised.

Nz have core skill as the basis for all they do. They play in weight categories to protect the smaller ancestral European from the ancestral islanders.

Yes be competitive but we need common-sense when a team is not strong enough to deal with 1 or 2 individuals there should be a mechanism to withdraw those players during the game to give others a chance to develop. I was recently assistant coach at an unde r 13 county fixture. The opposition were stronger and more skillful and quite rightly won the game. Their inside centre was an animal he broke the line almost at will.after a few try's they took him off and it was a more even game and people could then see what the other players could do. If only all coaches were as enlightened we would not need regulations to enforce things

At this stage it should all be about development not winning

Exactly my point and exactly what every one else is busy missing with a kneejerk response. BTW who is the current World No1 nation and what system do they operate?